From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p61EUaoJ070191 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:30:36 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A9D6616759A6 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SuzeDQ580EmXKtBd for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p61EC5PE007828 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:12:05 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p61EUKvB136742 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:30:23 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p618UJ4c017207 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 02:30:19 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0DD9FB.8090307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:30:19 -0700 From: Allison Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2v v7] XFS TESTS: ENOSPC Punch Hole Test References: <1309272301-5742-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1309272301-5742-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Allison Henderson Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 06/28/2011 07:44 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > Hi All, > > This is another set I sent out a while ago, but I didnt see it show up on the lists, > so I am resending this one too. The work in this patch is a continuation from a > previous patch set that has been partially accepted, so I thought I > should retain the v6. > > This patch set adds the ENOSPC test that was used for ext4 punch hole testing. > This test will verify that a hole can be punched even when the disk is full. > Reserved blocks should be used to complete the operation when there is not blocks > to further fragment the file. > > Because punching a hole does not always require extra blocks, there needs to > be serveal iterations of punching holes, and then filling the file system to 100% > usage before it is forced to grow the tree in order to handle the fragmentation. > The growing of the tree is what would cause ENOSPC if not for the use of reserved blocks. > > I could use some opinions on this patch set becuase I am not sure if other filesystems > handle their punch holes in the same way. Although xfs appears to pass the test, > should this test be an ext4 only test? Thx! > Hi All, I just wanted to poke this thread before too much time goes by. This patch was initially part of an earlier set that's already been picked up, and it seemed like people were generally interested in it, so I resubmitted it as it's own patch. Is there still an interest in this patch set? I have another set that now also needs to add a new test 255 (the fix 252 failure patch set). I am thinking that if people still want this test, I could put this patch in with the other set so that they stack properly. Thx! Allison Henderson _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs